2017: HB 334 April's Law; enact Restraining orders or Protective orders

Discussion in 'Current Bills' started by tmoore912, Feb 15, 2017.

  1. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    2017-2018 Regular Session - HB 334
    April's Law; enact


    http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20172018/HB/334

    Sponsored By
    (1) Waites, Keisha 60th(2) Scott, Sandra 76th(3) Jones, Sheila 53rd


    Committees
    HC: Public Safety and Homeland Security SC:

    First Reader Summary
    A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Part 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to carrying and possession of firearms, so as to prohibit the issuance to and maintenance of a weapons carry license for any person against whom certain restraining orders or protective orders have been issued for the duration of such orders; to provide for it to be unlawful for any person convicted of an offense involving family violence to receive, possess, or transport any firearm; to provide for exceptions; to provide for definitions; to provide for criminal penalties; to provide for a short title; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.


    Status History
    Feb/14/2017 - House First Readers
    Feb/10/2017 - House Hopper
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    :lol: Somebody tell Rep. Waites that this is already the law . . . It's federal, and the federal disqualifiers are right there on the license issuing statute as a disqualifier.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
  4. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    Well, it's being heard in that House Hearing in 506 CLOB with no Live video feed right now, and hopefully one of the smarter legislators on the committee will let Waites know that it is already Federal Law.
     
  5. Craftsman

    Craftsman Well-Known Member

    2,974
    242
    63
    Thought this might be smoke screen to hide a "divorce prohibition" purchase/ownership ban, but nope, that isn't in there.
     
  6. tbill

    tbill Member

    846
    1
    18
    I have considerable doubt about the literacy of all of the sponsors of this bill.
     
  7. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    AJC article on the 2A Subcommittee Hearing today http://www.ajc.com/news/state--regi...lls-get-house-hearing/9Z7mw1FjIvDuNwo2QS3YKL/

    "Rep. Keisha Waites, D-Atlanta, presented her House Bill 334, which would bar anyone who is subject to a temporary restraining order from buying a gun. Waites introduced April Ross, whose story was the impetus for the bill.

    Ross was a Fulton County prosecutor when her estranged husband shot her three times in 2014 shortly after Ross filed for divorce.

    Ross was hit three times and is now paralyzed from the chest down. Her husband committed suicide.

    Ross said her husband threatened her after they separated and that while she didn’t seek a restraining order, she might have considered it if Waites’ bill was already the law.

    “It was about two or three weeks before I filed for divorce he let me know I was basically going to be a ghost and that there was only one way out of marriage and it was in a grave,†Ross said. "
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  8. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,187
    247
    63

    Wait! She was a prosecutor at the time?? So she was one of the ELECT who is exempt from off-limits carry. And she didn't avail herself of her privilege? Wow, and now she wants to restrict others rights on nothing more than the say so of an estranged partner?
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Full Stop. So April's law would not have helped April. Indeed, we cannot think of a single person or incident this law would have prevented. Pass it anyway! If you don't, then you hate women!
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Let's examine how a TPO works in Georgia, so you guys can decide whether to support this bill.

    A petitioner files a petition. She gives ex parte testimony. In other words, the man does not get to be there to defend himself.

    The judge sets a date for a hearing in which the man can come and defend himself, more than a week later. The law requires it be within 30 days.

    In the meantime, the judge signs an order.

    Let's say your wife or significant other goes down to the courthouse and swears you are threatening to kill her. The judge can already throw you out of the house (literally, your first notice is when the deputies show up and tell you that you have five minutes to gather anything you might need, and, if you resist or try to return, you go to jail with serious criminal charges).

    Now, what does this bill add?

    Keep in mind you have NOT had any due process at this point.

    What does this bill do to you?
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    I might be wrong about federal law and it being congruent with this proposed bill. Federal law disarms you only after notice and a hearing. What about this bill?
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-19/chapter-13/article-1/19-13-3
    Upon the filing of a verified petition in which the petitioner alleges with specific facts that probable cause exists to establish that family violence has occurred in the past and may occur in the future, the court may order such temporary relief ex parte as it deems necessary to protect the petitioner or a minor of the household from violence. If the court issues an ex parte order, a copy of the order shall be immediately furnished to the petitioner.​


    That's it. No hearing. You never even knew it happened. The ex parte order is signed and out the door. A deputy hands it to you. You are instantly ineligible for your GWCL under this bill.


    ODDLY, I see nothing that would render you ineligible to possess (remember, federal law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard). So you could keep your guns, but not carry them anywhere that a license or eligibility for a license is required.